Minister's Inter-Faith Blog Page 1
The
Wedding in Cana of Galilee
|
| Dear
Dan. Coming originally from a church that insisted on total immersion as the only means of entry to the Christian community, I was a little surprised to see in today's Bulletin the 1984 United Church Assembly assertion that baptism was the only method of accession to the church. Does this leave Salvationists and Quakers as Infidels?? Perhaps there is a need to rethink this dogma! You may also be interested in the Anglican take on"guna" in their commentary on today's RSL passage about the wedding in Cana: John 2:1-11 "John uses symbolism extensively in his telling of the good news. He says in 20:31: these [signs] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name. Our reading looks forward to Jesusresurrection and glorification (on the third day, v. 1), the Last Supper, and the messianic banquet expected at the end of time, when Christ comes again. The mother of Jesus appears for the first time in the gospel; the last time is when she stands at the foot of the cross. On both occasions, Jesus addresses her as Woman(v. 4), a title roughly equivalent to Madam today: Jesus is guided in his ministry only by the Fathers will (my hour ...). Marys words in v. 5 suggest that she believes in Jesus, as she does at the foot of the cross. Jesus has the water jars filled completely (to the brim, v. 7) with water. In Judaism, the rites of purification(v. 6, washing before and after eating) were ceremonial, but in totally transforming water into wine, Jesus replaces the old (Judaism) with the new; wine is a symbol originating in Christ. In Isaiah, marriage between God and his people symbolizes the fulfilment of Gods purpose for his people; here the abundance of good wine symbolizes the joy accompanying the fulfilment (as foretold in several prophetic books). John presents signs(v. 11) as aids to people in reaching his objectives (20:31). Jesus shows that God is present in his very nature (his glory)." © 1996-2003 Chris Haslam Sincerely, Roy. |
| Roy, Baptism remains a thorny and complex ecclesial and theological issue. The 1984 assembly was responding to the WCC document (BEM) that was attempting to deal with an issue between those who speak of a distinction between baptism and membership--this centres around the question of who gets to participate in Holy Communion. The Orthodox communities (even as the often do not recognize Protestan Baptism rites as valid) insist that all who are baptized have access to the table, some protestants and the Roman church argued that only with confirmation was access to the table permitted. The response by the WCC was to say that only baptism marks membership as a response to those who insisted that baptism and confirmation marked membership. From this side the argument was "inclusive" that is an attempt to include all the baptized at the table. In my theological view baptism is an outward sign of a existing state of grace. It does not add grace or salvation it merely "confirms the reality." AS you heard and saw me dancing on this tight rope, even as I tried to explain to the children the meaning of the act we participated in, I hope you heard my attempt to suggest that theologically the act is for us and not for God and does not exclude the non-baptized from salvation. It is not an easy issue to resolve--the Church attempted to suggest that all the baptized have access to the table by speaking of baptism as the only way we become members. Is there a distinction between only and "exclusively" in English? That is, would it be possible to say something like while baptism is the only way the church has to mark "membership" the grace of God and membership in the community can occur without the outer sign. What a theological dance we lead in our Dear United Church--it wishes on one side to affirm "tradition" and WCC decisions while being concerned to recognize a God who works beyond the edges of tradition, institutional and religious form. That was part of my argument in the sermon by the way--a difficult one to make given the real limits of John. Incidentally, guna is not disrespectful in and of itself but is disrespectful--or indicative of a certain "testiness" in the response of Jesus to his mother in the story as John tell's it. I was really trying to suggest how many things were at work in this passage--one that sadly is reduced to a kind miracle-sign in order to help out a sagging wedding reception. So much more is going on and some of it I think intentionally humourous and disruptive--imagine the hearers of the tale realizing that the party has already got to the "drunken" state late in the party and suddenly some enormous amount of good wine arrives through a miraculous change in the water for ritual cleansing. There is so much going on here--a comment on the ritual practice of washing, a comment on the Hellenistic divine man theology that sees "miraculous acts" as the sign of Holiness by telling a rather comical tale of a miracle that brings more wine to an already drunken party, a rather testy comment to his mother essentially saying "Leave me alone Madam, not now!" and even more is going on in this story. Crossan, Funk and others have commented on the way Jesus addresses his mother here as having direct parallels to the way in which he responds to the demoniacs who wish to Name him aloud. Finally, I never realized before that Jesus mother is not named in the narrative of John. The other Marys are named but Jesus' mother is unamed. Why does John avoid naming Jesus's mother? That is another intriguing question. So much to consider, the polyvalence of scripture generates I hope further explorations into the mystery of grace. Daniel |
| Dear
Daniel, I had not really considered that interpretation of "only"- perhaps "no more than" would be a better wording? In regard to the miracle at Cana, there are many possible interpretations. The most economical (and thus, to my mind, perhaps the most likely) view is that John took the information from the miracle legends and interpreted them in a Eucharistic sense, suitable for reading at the weekly gathering for the Agape. Thus, the wedding at Cana was set at the beginning of his account to symbolize the marriage between Christ and the early Christian community. Moreover, throught the bread and the wine, the early believers could be filled with the flesh and blood of the spirit. The specific miracle might be seen at two levels. As with the feeding of the 5000, there is the altering of human relationships that allows all to be satisfied. A poor woman tries to provide a wedding banquet for her daughter, and cannot borrow the cash to pay the wine steward adequately. Instead of complaining that they have been served table wine rather than Bordeaux (Luke 538-39), the guests graciously accept and praise their serving of water to honour the bride. At a deeper level, the 5000 gallons could be seen not as a joke, but an indication that the new wine is in sufficient quantity that is available for all humanity, rather than the clan living in one small village. Incidentally, my maternal grandfather (who was a strict teetotaller) was not at all worried by this passage, as he argued that Jesus was offering neou oinou ("fresh" wine, essentially grape juice that had not yet been fermented). This would fit with the idea that the wine was a new dispensation, going far beyond the local village. The text in John does not specify this, although the wine was certainly newly produced, and if Jesus was indeed fully human the "wine" had to be either grape juice or water. Roy. |
| Roy, I guess I am unconvinced that the story is about grape juice! I have heard these ways of handling the text of course. As you suggest the more economical interpretation would take the word wine to mean in the context of the story to be wine. The important thing (I think) is that John is engaged in a theological debate within the early community and beyond about the actual humanness of Jesus vs the notion that the incarnation was a mere apparition. The radical notion of Incarnation taken is that Jesus is fully human and fully divine. Divinity is found in all the flesh and blood of human life. I take this very seriously as the core point of the whole gospel. But I am still struck by the wonderful absurdity of the gallons of wine that arrives after the party has drunk its fill--remember the comment is how good this wine is and not how fresh. In many respects I do think there is humour here, intended or unintended, and that grasping it and experiencing it can free us to a new openness to the Sacred. I think what is difficult for us in the church is the unruliness or wildness and wideness of God's grace and yet this is at the heart of the gospel. (the problems around baptism illustrate this) To put it another way, God is God not the idol of any religious form. I think of that wonderful saying of Jesus in Thomas "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. 2When they find, they will be disturbed. 3When they are disturbed, they will marvel. . . " The agape meals were affairs that many saw as being immoral and threatening to the good order of the Empire, religion and society--men and women, Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, eating, it appears, at table together. The point I try to make is that the new community breaks the boundaries of convention, both religious and social, by introducing new patterns for community. The miracle-sign is a rather curious and almost trivial one of introducing wine at a party that evidently was running short on its supply. It, in a humorous way, shows that miracle-signs are not at the core of Christ's identity. I am unconvinced by the Eucharistic interpretation, incidentally, because it is uneconomical by presupposing a religious practice that becomes formalized only after the first two centuries in the emergence of the new religion. I think what is being explored is the meaning and identity of Jesus as the logos in flesh and the subsequent experiences (resurrection) of this logos in the flesh in the gatherings of the early community. What is the "identity" of the Incarnation and what does it mean for the early community? This is the real discussion of John and there we come back to, as the gospel puts it, "the Spirit that blows every which way" and the Sacred presence that abides as life giving wisdom (logos) in the very flesh and blood of human experience. Well those are some more thoughts on these very engaging and deceptively straight forward texts that open up beyond any easy interpretation into the revelation of the "disturbing presence" of God beyond convention--the "marvel" of "endless life unfolding," as the hymn puts it. On this bright Monday, yet more wrestling with the Divine! Daniel. |
| Submit
a blog |
Blog Listings |
Sermon Note |
Minister's Page |
Home Page |